Open House: The dangers of the Iranian ‘if’
The dangers of the Iranian ‘if’
By guest author, Anthony Painter
When asked on ABC News about what she would do if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, Hillary Clinton was explicit, “…we would be able to totally obliterate them and those people who run Iran need to know that.”
Forget the fact that the latest CIA National Intelligence Estimate on Iran concludes that the Iranians have suspended their nuclear weapons programme. No, Mrs Clinton was perfectly happy to skip across two lily pads of ‘if.’ Mrs Clinton treated the scenario of Iran acquiring a nuclear capability and launching a nuclear attack on Israel as a round-the-corner possibility. Someone keep her away from the red phone, please. Suddenly, the fact that Barack Obama’s nutty, former pastor believes that AIDS was an attack on black Americans orchestrated by the Federal government seems almost quaint by comparison.
Not to be outdone, the Fox News Commentariat has responded with its own set of ‘ifs’ that can only hurtle the US towards ever more assertive militarism.
A case in point is the former Bill Clinton adviser, Dick Morris (no Clinton fan nowadays), who fired a fusillade of his own ‘ifs’ into the debate.
He asks: “But what happens if Iran moves into the vacuum and takes over Iraq? And what if Al Qaeda takes advantage of the American absence and sets up a permanent base and sanctuary in Iraq, beyond our reach — a situation akin to the Taliban in Afghanistan where they could develop the capacity to hit us on 9-11 in their privileged, protected home territory? And what if hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who used to work with us start to be killed as happened when we pulled out of Vietnam? And what if the Iraqi oil falls into Iranian hands, sending the price even higher? And what if … The list goes on.”
Of course, the Bush administration never really had to answer what ‘if’ the intelligence was wrong? What ‘if’ your post-war plan failed abysmally? What ‘if’ day by day, week by week, Iraq increasingly become became a quagmire that would result in goodness knows how many civilian deaths on top of 4,000 military deaths and tens of thousands casualties on top of that? What ‘if’ you vastly skew the regional power balance in favour of Iran?
So ‘if’ is a dangerous word that is often abused by those who want to induce fear. ‘If’ the man or woman who succeeds George W Bush answers that 3am call is greeted with analysis that rests on ‘if this’, ‘if that,’ let’s hope that they have good sense to understand the potential tyranny of ‘if.’ And let’s hope that they don’t obliterate Iran. ‘If’ they do……
Anthony Painter is a regular writer for Tribune. His blog can be read here
Comments
Let’s see.
Iran, not known for starting wars or invading other countries. Number of nuclear weapons. None.
Israel, started all it’s wars in the Middle East and is an expanionist colony with a regime that wants to extend it’s borders to the Litani river, the Euphrates and the Nile. To this end has invaded Lebanon twice, siezed parts of Syria, Jordan and Egypt, ethnically cleansing the Palestinian people off their land since 1948. Number of nuclear weapons 200 to 300 with one of the largest and best equipped armed forces in the world.
Yup, Iran is definitely a threat to world peace and must be wiped out before they atack the peace loving peoples of Israel and then take over the world.
Well, don’t we all remember the ticking bomb scenario too often used to justify torture? “What if somebody smuggled a nuclear bomb into the US and if they set it up to explode at a predetermined time and if the intelligence services were to learn about it and if they didn’t the actual location and if they had captured an Al Qaeda operative, and so on ad nauseam.”
I supposed the use of such loaded questions shows which candidate most of the US media has chosen to support, never mind all the talk of the evil, liberal media.
Strangely enough, nobody asks hypothetical questions of the “what if Hamas were to suspend its attacks and recognize Israel?” variety or “what if Iran were to ask for international observers to monitor its civilian nuclear program?”
And that’s because ultimately these “if” questions are not hypothetical at all; they are not even questions: they are just ways for the interviewer to hint at a potential lack of machismo in the interviewee. “If you put Clinton or Obama in the White House, THIS is what will happen” are they basically saying.
But one IF we don’t need to consider:
“IF the USA attacks Iran, will Gutless Gordon commit British troops to the war?”
Because whatever the USA asks, Bottler Brown unhesitatingly agrees.
What if someone dug up a tape of Ahmadinejad’s supposedly violent anti-Israeli speech and found out all he said was “…in 50 to 100 years history will wipe Israel off the map.” History. Not Iran or war or nuclear anything. Just the passage of time. Time for the population demographics to change.
“Forget the fact that the latest CIA National Intelligence Estimate on Iran concludes that the Iranians have suspended their nuclear weapons programme.”
In fact the NIE was referring only to the design and weaponisation of Iran’s nuclear programme; it explicitly excluded consideration of the far more important issue of Iran’s uranium enrichment. Understandably, the Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Michael McConnell, conceded to the Senate Intelligence Committee in February that, for this reason, “I think I would change the way that we described [the] nuclear programme”.
Don Thompson: Nobody has to dig up any tapes of Ahmadinejad’s speech. What he actually said was “This regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time,” he was quoting a passage from a speech made by Ayatollah Khomeini.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel
Wowww, Iran and Israel whipped off the plant, the entire Middle east a nuclear wasteland….. sounds like “peace” and could be the solution to the worlds problems….
Just a quick response to Oliver Kamm, the National Intelligence Estimate states:
“We assess with moderate confidence that Iran probably would use covert facilities— rather than its declared nuclear sites—for the production of highly enriched uranium for a weapon. A growing amount of intelligence indicates Iran was engaged in covert uranium conversion and uranium enrichment activity, but we judge that these efforts probably were halted in response to the fall 2003 halt.”
The NIE does deal with uranium as well as plutonium enrichment. It is right to say that uranium enrichment does continue but it would be a leap based on the available evidence to say that this is for use in a weapon.
The NIE also comes to the conclusion that Iran halted its nuclear programme in response to international pressure, i.e. it is motivated by a cost-benefit analysis of its interests rather than a dash to a weapon regardless of the consequences.
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf
***it is motivated by a cost-benefit analysis of its interests rather than a dash to a weapon regardless of the consequences.***
Also I suspect by the fact it’s realised that it doesn’t need nuclear weapons to achieve it’s aims (if it has them) The US and Israel will in fact do most of the work for them by being the aggressors and launching attacks on the country. They will also leave themselves way beyond the pale if they also use tactical nuclear weapons against a country that does not have them.
Thanks to the stupidity of the NeoCon’s world plan Iran is becoming a major player in the Middle East and it’s that which Israel fears most. They can assassinate budding Arab leaders in Palestine, Lebanon and Syria but a nation is a totally different matter. Iran has the oil and gas, an educated society that is capable of industrialising itself. They fear Iran with a nuclear capability but fear it even more as a rich and powerful, industrial nation that will provide pride and leadership to the Arab world.
The corporate media always fail to ask the comparable opposite question: What the US (H. Clinton) would do if Israel attacked Iran. The answer to this question would be interesting since it can reveal the hypocracy and double standar of Clinton and the company.
HILLARY CLINTON CAN BEST WIN IN NOVEMBER:
It’s time for everyone to face the truth. Barack Obama has no real chance of winning the national election in November at this time. His crushing defeat in Pennsylvania makes that fact crystal clear. His best, and only real chance of winning in November is on a ticket with Hillary Clinton as her VP.
Hillary Clinton seemed almost somber at her Pennsylvania victory speech. As if part of her was hoping Obama could have proved he had some chance of winning against the republican attack machine, and their unlimited money, and resources.
But it is absolutely essential that the democrats take back the Whitehouse in November. America, and the American people are in a very desperate condition now. And the whole World has been doing all that they can to help keep us propped up.
Hillary Clinton say’s that the heat, and decisions in the Whitehouse are much tougher than the ones on the campaign trail. But I think Mr. Obama faces a test of whether he has what it takes to be a commander and chief by facing the difficult facts, and the truth before him. And by doing what is best for the American people by dropping out of the race, and offering his whole hearted assistance to Hillary Clinton to help her take back the Whitehouse for the American people, and the World.
Mr. Obama is a great speaker. And I am confident he can explain to the American people the need, and wisdom of such a personal sacrifice for them. It should be clear to everyone by now that Hillary Clinton is fighting her heart out for the American people. She has known for a long time that Mr. Obama can not win this November. You have to remember that the Clinton’s have won the Whitehouse twice before. They know what it takes.
If Mr. Obama fails his test of commander and chief we can only hope that Hillary Clinton can continue her heroic fight for the American people. And that she prevails. She will need all the continual support and help we can give her. She may fight like a superhuman. But she is only human.
Sen. Hillary Clinton: “You know, more people have now voted for me than have voted for my opponent. In fact, I now have more votes than anybody has ever had in a primary contest for a nomination. And it’s also clear that we’ve got nine more important contests to go.”
Sincerely
Jacksmith… Working Class 
Anthony Painter, you overlook the significance of this point about the NIE and uranium enrichment. The authors of the NIE disclose in a footnote that their definition of a nuclear weapons programme does NOT include that activity. That is a huge and highly material qualification to make. It was rightly commented on by David Miliband in an article in the FT shortly after the release of the NIE’s conclusions. It was the reason that Admiral McConnell made his extraordinary concession to the Senate Intelligence Committee three months ago. If you’re going to cite the NIE as grounds for dismissing Senator Clinton’s temperate and reasonable comments, then you need to take this enormous caveat into account.
It is not at all a conceptual leap to suppose that uranium enrichment is for military rather than civil purposes. Enrichment facilities at Natanz and a heavy water plant at Arak - before a single reactor has come into service - make no sense in the context of a civil nuclear programme. Other countries with reactors don’t seek enrichment capabilties. Sweden has ten reactors; it simply buys fuel on the open market, which is cheaper.
No one, by the way, disputes that Iran sets policy according to its assessment of costs and benefits. It has, after all, gone to some lengths to stay within the NPT regime, unlike N Korea. The worry is that, with the exception of the governments of the US, UK and France, no one is now making clear to Iran the costs of non-compliance.
Oliver, I’ll leave readers to judge whether the headline conclusions are more or less significant than a footnoted definition.
The point that you make about enrichment facilities making ‘no sense’ in the context of a civil nuclear programme do not stack up against the conclusions of the NIE. If they make ‘no sense’ then the conclusion would have been that Iran was actively engaged in activity that was designed purely for the development of a nuclear weapon. That was not its conclusion.
The point I make in my article is not that Iran will not or is not motivated to develop nuclear weapons (we know that it has been so motivated and is likely to still be.) We are right to be suspicious. My point is that to threaten ‘to obliterate’ Iran on the basis of the current information we have and some hypothetical scenarios is grossly irresponsible. If we constantly act on the worst case scenario rather than a balanced and careful assessment of the actual situation then inevitably we will find ourselves in a series of aggressive military responses that will certainly be counter-productive. And they have been.
If the Iranian president said once that he will wipe Isreal off the map, Isreal and very recently the hopeful future president of the United States have said it many times that they will wipe Iran off the map. However,it seems that when the US and Isreal say it, we dont hear, and forget fast, but when Ahmadinejad, and absolute powerless idiot say it, it carries a lot of weight. Bigotry at its best…
In this centry alone, Iran was in only one war and that was with Iraq, which was imposed upon Iran to weaken it which did not work, while the Isrealis and the American have been in many wars.
We, the people of this planet dont want any more wars for the US, Isreal or Iran. Look at the severe consequence of this present war all around the planet. Do we want more of this? No we dont. I am sure that people of Iran, Isreal and the US have nothing against each other. If the governments dont like each other lets put Ahmadinejad, Bush and Ohlmet somewhere isolated, and have them resolves their issues. I am sure no one will miss these three guys. I dont…..
Peace on every corner of this planet…
Hillary lost the vote of more than one million Iranian-Americans in the U.S. and around the world by making such a disgusting, shameful and hate-filled remark. And imagine that I once digged this woman - that was when she was the first lady. Amazing how power and the zionist lobby in Washington can change people and turn them into vicious monsters!
Hillary lost the vote of more than one million Iranian-Americans in the U.S. and around the world by making such a disgusting, shameful and hate-filled remark. And imagine that I once digged this woman - that was when she was the first lady. Amazing how power and the zionist lobby in Washington can change people and turn them into vicious monsters!
Anthony, it is a plainly circular argument to maintain that the NIE conclusion is justified because if it were not then the NIE would have said something else. The justification of the NIE conclusion is the issue at stake. My point is that the severely circumscribed definition of what constitutes Iran’s nuclear programme is material to that conclusion. (The exact words of the NIE are: ‘For the purposes of this Estimate, by “nuclear weapons program” we mean Iran’s nuclear weapon design and weaponization work and covert uranium conversion-related and uranium enrichment-related work; we do not mean Iran’s declared civil work related to uranium conversion and enrichment.’ The word “civil” in that sentence is question-begging.)
That isn’t just my view: it’s the view of the director of the agency that published the estimate. I repeat: if you’re going to invoke the NIE as evidence against Senator Clinton, then you should be aware of this immense qualification by the National Intelligence Council itself. I disagree with your assessment of the political wisdom of Senator’s Clinton’s comment, but I hope we can at least agree that the evidence you presented in the case against her is more ambiguous than you claimed.
As good a discussion as it’s been and I do respect that the points you make are from a position of knowledge, I’m afraid we can’t agree Oliver. Senator Clinton chose to ignore the current best evidence as expressed in the NIE and imagine a worst case (and very unlikely) scenario that led her to threaten to ‘obliterate Iran.’
Senator Obama’s response to the same question on Meet the Press yesterday was very different and in my view far more responsible.
Finally, the definition that you quote undercuts your previous arguments that the NIE somehow did not consider uranium enrichment for weapons grade fissile material as part of its assessment. Hence the quote that I posted a little further up the discussion. It is clear that while the threat of the Iranians re-starting their nuclear programme is present and of concern, it does not justify, in any way, shape or form the bellicose language that Senator Clinton is adopting. If her policies in the White House followed this mode we would be in a very grave situation indeed.
Oliver
I read your post and based on that I assume that I am writing to a somewhat intelligent person who is discussing an important issue not because he is interested to promote the neocon/zionist’s agenda in the Middle East but is interested in peace. However, I am amazed at your lack of knowledge about and empathy towards people in Iran.
1- You state that you are concerned about the “far more important issue of Iran’s uranium enrichment.” Why is this important to you but not the fact that Israel has around 200-300 nuke waiting to bomb anybody who is challenging her continuing genocide and occupation of other people’s land? This is an important issue since it is Israel who is occupying other people’s land and has attacked Iraq’s and Syria’s installations. Iran does not occupy other countries, has not invaded other countries and has been invaded by Iraq with the US support.
2- You argue that Senator Clinton’s comment on obliterating Iran is “temperate and reasonable.” Would you say that if Israel attack Iran, it is reasonable for the US to obliterate Israel? I will be surprised if you even contemplate this option. Don’t you think that continual verbal attack and threats by Western powers may in fact encourage Iran to build nukes in order to defend itself?
3- You state that “It is not at all a conceptual leap to suppose that uranium enrichment is for military rather than civil purposes.” And you base this on the ground that other countries such as Sweden “simply buys fuel on the open market, which is cheaper.” You seem to ignore the fact that the ability to master enrichment is related to other technological development important for health care and economic development, etc., in a country. Even if we ignore this fact and the implicit Western agenda to keep Iran backward in order to exploit its resources, you need to think about another fact. Buying fuel in the international market means that anytime Iran does not accept the wish/command of the Anglo-American and recently French powers, they can stop supplying Iran with the needed fuel.
I assume that in future if Iran did not give up more of its legitimate demand and rights, you will support the need to stop supplying such fuel to Iran because you will worry that “with the exception of the governments of the US, UK and France, no one is making clear to Iran the costs of non-compliance.”
Finally, why should Iran give up its right to enrichment as stated in the NPT? I think you should worry more about terrorist states that invade other countries than Iran which other that some vague accusation is forced to prove a negative hypothesis. Please worry about the country which has used the nuke twice and is in the business of invading other countries when they don’t submit to its demands.
Looking at the comments on here, it strikes me that we are behaving in a much calmer fashion than Hillary Clinton, or in fact many of the politicians in charge of foreign policy.
Let us examine Iran, and the sanctions which have been forced through, largely due to the US (prompted by AIPAC and the Israel lobby) the UK and other nations who have been threatened by us.
Iran have signed up to the NPT, they have allowed inspectors in, they are allowed to enrich Uranium for peaceful means, and they have maintained that they do not seek nuclear weapons. The Ayatollah Khamanei has reiterated, that Iran can never have nuclear weapons.
Iran has never in recent history (hundreds of years) attacked any of it’s neighbours. The Iran-Iraq war was started by Sadaam Hussein, who invaded Iran and took it’s land. Iraq was bankrolled by the US, who also sold him chemical weapons to use against Iran and the Kurds, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.
Much as I dislike M. Ahmadinejad, he was elected, because as mayor of Tehran, he fought corruption and improved conditions for the poor, and built up the infrastructure. He does not have ultimate power in Iran, this still rests with the theocracy.
Ahmadinejad’s famous, constantly misquoted speech - we pride ourselves in the West of good, unbiased reporting, this is a myth, because we use the media to report to the people, what our leaders want us to hear.
Ahmadinejad never said that he wanted to destroy the Jewish people, or bomb Israel. He said, that in the fullness of time, this Zionist regime will disappear from the pages of history.
Now, let us examine why the US is so “anti Iran”
In 1953, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, Mossadeq, was overthrown in a coup, largely organised by British and US intelligence services. This is an acknowledged fact and can be checked anywhere.
The coup was arranged to stop Mossadeq from nationalising Iran’s oil and gas industries, thus taking away power from Western companies. Following the coup, the Shah, Reza Pahlavi came to power, and for the next 25 years was a brutal dictator to his own people, but a puppet of the West. After some particularly nasty demonstrations in the late seventies, the Shah used his Savaak, and Israeli troops to enforce the law.
The 1979 revolution followed, when the exiled Ayatollah Khomeini came to power. The US embassy was overthrown, as the Iranian people recognised the part which the US had to pay in their misery. Hostages were taken, and later released, but the centre of US intelligence in the Middle East had fallen.
During the Iran-Iraq war, an Iranian airbus was shot down by the USS Vincennes over the Straits of Hormuz, an incident which was described by the US as a “tragic mistake”.
Since the revolution, Iran has been described by the US, as the Worlds largest state sponsor of terrorism.
As far as I can see, there should be no sanctions placed by the UN on Iran, because I can see no justifiable reason for them. On the other hand, the sanctions which Israel has continually ignored, should be enforced, and Kofi Annan, should come out in public and voice his opinions on the legality of the Iraq war.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is not fit to hold the office of President of the US after her comments, and senator John McCain is no better, after singing a song modelled on the Beach Boys “Barbara Ann”, using the words - “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”
US politics is at an all time low, and our politicians here in the UK should distance themselves from the rhetoric and sabre rattling of the “chickenhawks”
The whole point of the US holding nuclear weapons is to be able to threaten total obliteration should any enemy launch a nuclear attack. Clinton was stating the obvious.
On Iran’s uranium enrichment, it’s notable that when Ahmadinejad recently toured an enrichment facility, he was accompanied by the defence minister:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/science/29nuke.html
The following link is a report written in 1954 regarding the CIA and SIS coup in Iran.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/iran-cia-intro.pdf
It reads:
“Iranians working for the C.I.A. and posing as Communists harassed religious leaders and staged the bombing of one cleric’s home in a campaign to turn the country’s Islamic religious community against Mossadegh’s government.”
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html
Most people in the US are uninformed, if not misinformed, about the detrimental foreign intervention of the US of A. Given all these, it is very difficult to mend the relations. In fact Iranians have grievances against the US policies.
Robert Gates recalled joining then-national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in a meeting in Algiers with Iran’s political leaders shortly after the 1979 Islamic revolution.
“We discussed the possibility of continuing the partnership that had previously existed under the Shah - including military assistance to the new government,” he said.
“Our interlocutors had only one demand: ‘Give us the Shah.’ And ultimately Zbig said that would be incompatible with our national honor,” he said.
If you can ever imagine how much this “national honor” cost human lives and when you add the US support of Saddam during Iraq-Iran war, and then several blanket sanctions against the Iranian people (and not necessarily against the government) e.g., the spare parts for “civilian” airplanes.
…..”The CIA had given him (i.e., the defected Russian spy) the nuclear blueprints (i.e., technical designs for a TBA 480 high-voltage block, known as a “firing set”) and then sent him to Vienna to give them to the Iranian representatives along with other blueprints of enrichment system [which Iran originally asked for]. “ (State of War, by James Risen)
Branding Iran “axis of evil”, given the candle vigil of the Iranians for Sep 11 and its cooperation with the US in Afghanistan when the reformists were in power, were at best “cynical”.
Given the above, which are just sample snapshots of the US-Ira relationship, I think the US should be in fact “apologetic”
No user commented in " Open House: The dangers of the Iranian ‘if’ "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a Trackback